@Balrog99 "All 900 deaths are murders? I highly doubt that. The 60's riots? I was 1 year old. Yep, my fault."
I invite you to point out where I said it was your fault. I said the attitude was the problem.
"Keep voting for Democrats."
Yeah, we got more affordable healthcare, the removal of pre-existing conditions for insurance, welfare, that Iran deal, civil rights.
Lets take a look at the republicans these last few years: Concentration camps for children, Eugenics, an increase in hate crimes, re-normalized racism and hate speech, nearly 200,000 dead from a pandemic that is being ignored, etc. Should I keep going? I can keep going.
Oh yeah, tell me again how the Democratic party never changes anything or how Trump "shook up" the Republican party. The parties are not remotely equivalent.
When you can't even bring yourself to name an actual flaw of your own party, only what you believe to be their virtues, you have probably reached a point where you should step back and reflect. "They aren't comparable" rings more than a bit hollow when you can't even allow yourself to be self critical for a single paragraph.
The combo revelations of ICE having it's own Mengele, that military police were gathering ammunition and debated the use of a heat ray on protesters in Lafayette Square, and that the Attorney General believes COVID-19 restrictions are comparable to slavery tells me we are closer to the precipice than anyone realizes.
What is this? War of the Worlds???
Kind of squares with what he fantasized about doing at the border. They always seem to walk up to the line of absolute lunacy, but someone in the bureaucracy makes sure it doesn't actually happen. But this proclivity towards just flat-out sadism flows down from the top.
I think the Democrats of the Obama era were far more respectable than the Democrats of today, because at least under his watch they actually had principles beyond "reward friends and punish enemies", the only thing modern democrats understand. One big example of this is how, despite his many prosecutions of whistleblowers, he refused to go after Wikileaks. Now, they have no problems doing so, just like Trump. I genuinely thought Trump would refuse to do so, or that Democrats could offer a principled objection, but that was foolish of me.
Access to information has been and will continue to be increasingly restricted, the idea that you live in a society with a free press or information ecosystem when those who publish true but uncomfortable things for politicians are hounded to the ends of the earth is laughable.
"What has changed since that Obama-era consensus? Only one thing: in 2016, WikiLeaks published documents that reflected poorly on Democrats and the Clinton campaign rather than the Bush-era wars, rendering Democrats perfectly willing, indeed eager, to prioritize their personal contempt for Assange over any precepts of basic press freedoms, civil liberties, or Constitutional principles. It’s really just as simple – and as ignoble – as that.
It is this utterly craven and authoritarian mentality that is about to put Democrats of all sorts in bed with the most extremist and dangerous of the Trump faction as they unite to create precedents under which the publication of information – long held sacrosanct by anyone caring about press freedoms – can now be legally punished.
Recall that the DNC itself is currently suing WikiLeaks and Assange for publishing the DNC and Podesta emails they received: emails deemed newsworthy by literally every major media outlet, which relentlessly reported on them. Until this current Trump DOJ criminal prosecution of Assange, that DNC lawsuit had been the greatest Trump-era threat to press freedoms – because it seeks to make the publication of documents, which is the core of journalism, legally punishable. The Trump DOJ’s attempts to criminalize those actions is merely the next logical step in this descent into a full-scale attack on basic press rights"
Assange learned what everyone else has. That Trump sees loyalty and transactional relationships as a one way street. Trump could pardon Assange and Snowden this afternoon if he wanted to. God knows he isn't shy about handing them out. I'm quite certain Assange believed he would be safe from extradition and prosecution due to Trump's 2016 rhetoric on Wikileaks. He was very mistaken.
The election involves a choice between two candidates and parties. I am not sure there has ever been an easier choice to make. At the last election the British had to choose between johnson and corbyn, which was hard as they were both genuinely problematic, this is not.
The democrats aren’t perfect but I question anyone that tries to argue that their flaws are anywhere near equivalent to the dumpster fire that is the trump republicans. The mental contortions that “moral” people must go through to vote for him would fill a dissertation. I particularly enjoy being repeatedly told how bad the US would look under biden, with the use of footage from how it looks now under trump.
Assange learned what everyone else has. That Trump sees loyalty and transactional relationships as a one way street. Trump could pardon Assange and Snowden this afternoon if he wanted to. God knows he isn't shy about handing them out.
I can't disagree there. The people who said Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself are right, and while I always knew that, I also thought he would think Wikileaks is on "his side" given 2016, even though they are not, and pardon him.
At the very least, I didn't expect most democrats to turn on Wikileaks. When I was a liberal during this time I heard nothing but praise about them. It's depressing because it means there is nobody left in the public sphere- not even Rand Paul- who actually talks about protecting civil liberties in any real way.
To be fair, a lot of journalists are against prosecuting Wikileaks, because they know it endangers them as well should they ever publish anything classified, which is supposed to be legal.
I have to remind myself every once in awhile that the political landscape of today really is nothing like the previous decade.
Wikieleaks allowed itself to become a political pawn in the election meddling in 2016. Most progressive support Chelsea Manning and to a lesser but significant extent, Snowden too.
However, the fact that Roger Stone was able to give orders to Wikileaks to release Podesta's emails within 24 hours of something like the Hollywood Access tapes absolutely damages and de-legitimizes a lot of the good work they were doing.
Cant put a thumb on the scale and also pretend to be unbiased.
Wikieleaks allowed itself to become a political pawn in the election meddling in 2016. Most progressive support Chelsea Manning and to a lesser but significant extent, Snowden too.
However, the fact that Roger Stone was able to give orders to Wikileaks to release Podesta's emails within 24 hours of something like the Hollywood Access tapes absolutely damages and de-legitimizes a lot of the good work they were doing.
Cant put a thumb on the scale and also pretend to be unbiased.
Which kind of proves the point of what I quoted Greenwald as saying, that the democrats will happily sacrifice their own stated moral principles in the name of partisanship. If the truth is going to favor the people they dislike, then they will punish those who speak it.
It certainly isn't discrediting to any source of information if they are vehemently supportive of the democratic candidate, oh no siree. Assange clearly isn't a Republican, has published highly damaging leaks about Republicans before including war crimes, is in every way, shape, and form more objective than any other source of information, because he only publishes what is documented and does it to both sides.
It just goes to show that the only way to be "reliable" to the modern day left is to never tell them what they don't want to hear, and always act like you are totally on their side in every way. It's really unhealthy.
I remember 2016 articles making hilarious claims like that Wikileaks is a "de facto Trump Super PAC". Ignore the content, attack the motives.
If I was gonna publish damaging information about a potential president, I would probably do it before, and not after, they have the power to use the Justice Department to prosecute you, but that's just me. Not that it worked out for him in the end though.
Assange learned what everyone else has. That Trump sees loyalty and transactional relationships as a one way street. Trump could pardon Assange and Snowden this afternoon if he wanted to. God knows he isn't shy about handing them out.
I can't disagree there. The people who said Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself are right, and while I always knew that, I also thought he would think Wikileaks is on "his side" given 2016, even though they are not, and pardon him.
At the very least, I didn't expect most democrats to turn on Wikileaks. When I was a liberal during this time I heard nothing but praise about them. It's depressing because it means there is nobody left in the public sphere- not even Rand Paul- who actually talks about protecting civil liberties in any real way.
To be fair, a lot of journalists are against prosecuting Wikileaks, because they know it endangers them as well should they ever publish anything classified, which is supposed to be legal.
I have to remind myself every once in awhile that the political landscape of today really is nothing like the previous decade.
I said this before, someone just needs to sit through these charges all the way to the Supreme Court in order for this type of behavior to be eradicated.
It's one thing for random nobodies to say things are unconstitutional, it's another when the Supreme Court says it.
Both political parties essentially agreed to let Assange, guilty of harming no one, live as a de facto prisoner ever since he began living in the embassy many years ago, and now that they have him, he faces life. No truly moral political leaders would allow this. All would gladly put their ambitions before the life of an innocent person.
Journalists can mysteriously disappear in Russia for flying too close to the sun, in America they just do it openly and nobody cares.
I'm not particularly interested in dying on the hill of which band of murderers is the more sensible one. The only time they both agree is when it comes to continuing to kill people overseas. I find the whole conversation a pointless distraction from important issues, really. I don't want to convince folks that Republicans are good, so much as convince them that Democrats aren't as good as their t.v ads portray them to be.
Wikieleaks allowed itself to become a political pawn in the election meddling in 2016. Most progressive support Chelsea Manning and to a lesser but significant extent, Snowden too.
However, the fact that Roger Stone was able to give orders to Wikileaks to release Podesta's emails within 24 hours of something like the Hollywood Access tapes absolutely damages and de-legitimizes a lot of the good work they were doing.
Cant put a thumb on the scale and also pretend to be unbiased.
Which kind of proves the point of what I quoted Greenwald as saying, that the democrats will happily sacrifice their own stated moral principles in the name of partisanship. If the truth is going to favor the people they dislike, then they will punish those who speak it.
It certainly isn't discrediting to any source of information if they are vehemently supportive of the democratic candidate, oh no siree. Assange clearly isn't a Republican, has published highly damaging leaks about Republicans before including war crimes, is in every way, shape, and form more objective than any other source of information, because he only publishes what is documented and does it to both sides.
It just goes to show that the only way to be "reliable" to the modern day left is to never tell them what they don't want to hear, and always act like you are totally on their side in every way. It's really unhealthy.
I remember 2016 articles making hilarious claims like that Wikileaks is a "de facto Trump Super PAC". Ignore the content, attack the motives.
If I was gonna publish damaging information about a potential president, I would probably do it before, and not after, they have the power to use the Justice Department to prosecute you, but that's just me. Not that it worked out for him in the end though.
... What I said does not prove that point. At all. I havent expressed any opinion on the matter outside of the general positive opinions of Progressives toward Chelsea Manning and Snowden (Both of whom leaked during Obama's administration, doing him no favors)
and accurately noting that Wikileaks was working directly with the Trump campaign in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale.
I didnt say Assange was a Republican. I didnt say if I approved or disproved or prior wikileaks releases.
Wikileak's credibility is damaged. Not because they released damaging information about Democrats (or Republicans) - but because they worked directly with the campaign to do so, and worse yet - with information sourced by Russian authorities with a vested interest in meddling in the US election.
In other news, The Supreme Court of my state has issued a few important rulings since 2018, at first changing the electoral map, removing the Green Party over a technicality, and expanding mail-in voting until 3 days after the election.
Virtually all of these changes are in favor of democrats, so I wouldn't be surprised if they take PA this time.
I'm not entirely confident they will, however, given the polls I've seen as well as the attitude I get just from living here and knowing people, but it's certainly a distinct possibility as the playing field here is much more in their favor this time.
If your state is making changes before the election, what are they? Curious as to how common it is and what is happening across the country.
The only thing that happened in Michigan up until now is that mail-in ballot applications were sent to everybody a month or two ago. Not sure what the results were. Crickets so far...
I'm not entirely sure mail-in voting necessarily favors the Democrats but I've heard that it will. The logic doesn't really add up to me since there's been plenty of time for anybody to get the old-fashioned absentee ballots which anybody can use for any reason in this state.
The only thing that happened in Michigan up until now is that mail-in ballot applications were sent to everybody a month or two ago. Not sure what the results were. Crickets so far...
I'm not entirely sure mail-in voting necessarily favors the Democrats but I've heard that it will. The logic doesn't really add up to me since there's been plenty of time for anybody to get the old-fashioned absentee ballots which anybody can use for any reason in this state.
Well, according to media reports, mail in ballots are leaning heavily democrat. I imagine this is the case in this particular year because of COVID-19. I also think it is generally a safe assumption that they took the case to court because they thought this outcome would benefit them.
Both political parties essentially agreed to let Assange, guilty of harming no one, live as a de facto prisoner ever since he began living in the embassy many years ago, and now that they have him, he faces life. No truly moral political leaders would allow this. All would gladly put their ambitions before the life of an innocent person.
Journalists can mysteriously disappear in Russia for flying too close to the sun, in America they just do it openly and nobody cares.
I'm not particularly interested in dying on the hill of which band of murderers is the more sensible one. The only time they both agree is when it comes to continuing to kill people overseas. I find the whole conversation a pointless distraction from important issues, really. I don't want to convince folks that Republicans are good, so much as convince them that Democrats aren't as good as their t.v ads portray them to be.
One has to remember he entered the Embassy not for Wikileaks but to escape prosecution for sexual harassment/ rape in Sweden? Norway? Finland? I forget.
Assange has the right to publish the classified information, however, if he obtained it illegally then that is where he gets into trouble.
If what he is doing is noble and right in his mind then he should face the courts and plead his case. He hasn’t, he broke his word to the embassy he was living in and had to be dragged out. He’s a coward.
He sure isn’t a Judith Miller or even a Matthew Cooper.
About PA, I agree about changing voting laws right before an election is a no no. Ontario went through it with the Toronto Municipal election and it had political interference written all over it.
However, Covid done messed a lot of things up and extending a deadline to get votes in this time around is an exception especially if the ballots haven’t even been printed yet.
With the Green Party ruling, I disagree with the courts on having them removed - more choice is always better - however, I would have to know how long this has been in the actual courts before declaring foul play. If this ruling is years in the making, due to stall tactics being used by the Green Party or worse the GOP then I have no sympathy for such a late ruling. If it was brought to court this year, and if the Green Party has been on previous ballots, then I strongly reject this play.
With the Green Party ruling, I disagree with the courts on having them removed - more choice is always better - however, I would have to know how long this has been in the actual courts before declaring foul play. If this ruling is years in the making, due to stall tactics being used by the Green Party or worse the GOP then I have no sympathy for such a late ruling. If it was brought to court this year, and if the Green Party has been on previous ballots, then I strongly reject this play.
No. This wasnt a stall tactic by the Green Party. In PA - it looks like they incorrectly submitted paperwork for appearing on the ballot, and so will not be allowed on. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin last week, where the Green Party was again not allowed on the ballot due to paperwork and submission issues.
The Supreme Court of PA's vote was on Party lines (5-2), but the Wisconsin one wasnt (4-3, with a conservative judge joining the liberal bloc).
With the Green Party ruling, I disagree with the courts on having them removed - more choice is always better - however, I would have to know how long this has been in the actual courts before declaring foul play. If this ruling is years in the making, due to stall tactics being used by the Green Party or worse the GOP then I have no sympathy for such a late ruling. If it was brought to court this year, and if the Green Party has been on previous ballots, then I strongly reject this play.
No. This wasnt a stall tactic by the Green Party. In PA - it looks like they incorrectly submitted paperwork for appearing on the ballot, and so will not be allowed on. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin last week, where the Green Party was again not allowed on the ballot due to paperwork and submission issues.
The Supreme Court of PA's vote was on Party lines (5-2), but the Wisconsin one wasnt (4-3, with a conservative judge joining the liberal bloc).
It's also happened to Kanye in literally every state he has attempted to get on the ballot. I'm sorry, but if you're running for President, and aren't crossing every t and dotting every i well in advance of whatever deadline needs to be met, then I'm fairly sure you can't run a country of 330 million people. This is not an application to fold clothes at the GAP.
Someone who did submit the paperwork correctly had his Town hall tonight. And Biden is becoming more and more impressive as he goes on. So, naturally, the Trump campaign line has gone from "he doesn't know what his own name is" to "he is taking performance enhancing drugs" to "he clearly had all the questions in advance". He also stood for the whole event, unlike the person currently in the office who sat through his. And the entire right-wing media accused actual voter questions of being an "ambush".
With the Green Party ruling, I disagree with the courts on having them removed - more choice is always better - however, I would have to know how long this has been in the actual courts before declaring foul play. If this ruling is years in the making, due to stall tactics being used by the Green Party or worse the GOP then I have no sympathy for such a late ruling. If it was brought to court this year, and if the Green Party has been on previous ballots, then I strongly reject this play.
No. This wasnt a stall tactic by the Green Party. In PA - it looks like they incorrectly submitted paperwork for appearing on the ballot, and so will not be allowed on. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin last week, where the Green Party was again not allowed on the ballot due to paperwork and submission issues.
The Supreme Court of PA's vote was on Party lines (5-2), but the Wisconsin one wasnt (4-3, with a conservative judge joining the liberal bloc).
It's also happened to Kanye in literally every state he has attempted to get on the ballot. I'm sorry, but if you're running for President, and aren't crossing every t and dotting every i well in advance of whatever deadline needs to be met, then I'm fairly sure you can't run a country of 330 million people. This is not an application to fold clothes at the GAP.
Someone who did submit the paperwork correctly had his Town hall tonight. And Biden is becoming more and more impressive as he goes on. So, naturally, the Trump campaign line has gone from "he doesn't know what his own name is" to "he is taking performance enhancing drugs" to "he clearly had all the questions in advance". He also stood for the whole event, unlike the person currently in the office who sat through his. And the entire right-wing media accused actual voter questions of being an "ambush".
Yeah. The real ugly thing about both Kanye and the Green party is both have admitted to receiving a great deal of support from GOP operatives and lawyers for getting the required signatures and paperwork done.
I didnt watch any of the Biden townhall (or the Trump one), but reactions seem to be more positive than Trumps by a decent amount. It doesnt sound like Biden was great by any stretch - but mostly competent.
Wikieleaks allowed itself to become a political pawn in the election meddling in 2016. Most progressive support Chelsea Manning and to a lesser but significant extent, Snowden too.
However, the fact that Roger Stone was able to give orders to Wikileaks to release Podesta's emails within 24 hours of something like the Hollywood Access tapes absolutely damages and de-legitimizes a lot of the good work they were doing.
Cant put a thumb on the scale and also pretend to be unbiased.
Which kind of proves the point of what I quoted Greenwald as saying, that the democrats will happily sacrifice their own stated moral principles in the name of partisanship. If the truth is going to favor the people they dislike, then they will punish those who speak it.
It certainly isn't discrediting to any source of information if they are vehemently supportive of the democratic candidate, oh no siree. Assange clearly isn't a Republican, has published highly damaging leaks about Republicans before including war crimes, is in every way, shape, and form more objective than any other source of information, because he only publishes what is documented and does it to both sides.
It just goes to show that the only way to be "reliable" to the modern day left is to never tell them what they don't want to hear, and always act like you are totally on their side in every way. It's really unhealthy.
I remember 2016 articles making hilarious claims like that Wikileaks is a "de facto Trump Super PAC". Ignore the content, attack the motives.
If I was gonna publish damaging information about a potential president, I would probably do it before, and not after, they have the power to use the Justice Department to prosecute you, but that's just me. Not that it worked out for him in the end though.
I generally support your position on freedom of information, but I'm not sure the law is quite as clear-cut as you suggest. Apart from potential issues about the way the information was obtained in the first place (as Assange had contacts with those that provided the information before it was hacked, there's at least a question about conspiracy to answer), the legality of publication is also affected by the reason that was done. Your assumption appears to be that Assange was a noble crusader interested only in truth and that doesn't seem to me to square well with someone willing to spend a large portion of their life hiding from going to court (and a Swedish one at that).
If Assange did eventually end up in a US court, one issue likely to be explored would be his reasons for publication. If that were done with malice, then first amendment rights don't operate in the same way.
Civil rights, welfare, the Iran Deal (Which Republicans ended), continuously defending the ACA, ObamaCare (not great, but did get about 20 million more Americans access to health care), etc.
Yup, nothing but talk...
@WarChiefZeke "When you can't even bring yourself to name an actual flaw of your own party, only what you believe to be their virtues, you have probably reached a point where you should step back and reflect."
They aren't my party, but they are the best chance we have of undoing the damage Trump has done. When compared to the current Republican party, there IS no comparison. Get back to me when Biden opens up concentration camps, eugenics camps, and advocates for police brutality.
"Access to information has been and will continue to be increasingly restricted, the idea that you live in a society with a free press or information ecosystem when those who publish true but uncomfortable things for politicians are hounded to the ends of the earth is laughable."
I know right? With Trump continually attacking the free press and the utter bloat of conservative propaganda that exists only to convince people to ignore what they see is utterly insidious. Also, the fact that you said this is hilarious. How many pages did you spend attacking the free press in this very thread?
You are now going to see just how utterly disingenuous and full of shit the entire right-wing is, as they do a complete 180 on their EXPLICIT reasoning for not giving Garland a hearing, except this time 50 days before an election, not an entire year. I've talked about McConnell ad nausem, I'm not gonna relitigate it here. He is absolutely going to fill the seat, and they will absolutely do so even if Biden wins in the lame duck.
There hasn't been a more stark contrast in US history between what McConnell did with Scalia's death and what he is about to do with Ginsburg's. Hypocrisy isn't even a strong enough word. But their super-power is their utter shamelessness. If Biden wins and Trump seats her replacement, the Dems should stack the court. Biden should come out for this NOW.
The ONLY hope is finding 4 Senators that will hold themselves to the standards they dictated for themselves four years ago. The only possible people that could be are Romney, Collins, Murkowsi and......honestly, I can't think of who the 4th would be. So we're fucked. An absolute rubber-stamp for oligarchy for the rest of our lives, and an almost certain end to reproductive rights for women.
The only possible sign of hope is that I think the double-standard (again, the most obvious double-standard in history by leaps and bounds) will get through to most people given how close we are to the election, and the outrage it sparks will drive turnout through the roof. Trump's pick does nothing for that. Every Evangelical and person voting for a right-wing court is already committed to being in line on election day. But the stunning hypocrisy and importance of this will shock people on the other side to the polls.
Give it a couple of minutes Kay. Like her or hate her she deserves a few minutes before claiming her death to be a political turn of events. She was an amazing woman that we should respect and mourn despite the political climate. Please?
Give it a couple of minutes Kay. Like her or hate her she deserves a few minutes before claiming her death to be a political turn of events. She was an amazing woman that we should respect and mourn despite the political climate. Please?
I don't mean to be rude, but her death IS a political turn of events, a seismic one. I don't have to claim it or make it one for it to be so. No Supreme Court Justice will ever have a death that isn't. But this one is by orders of magnitude moreso.
The power these 9 people hold over us is IMMENSE. And a majority of the voters in this country were robbed of their right to have their duly-elected President pick one of them, and the opposition is going to abandon the EXACT reasoning (flimsy as it was) they used to make that happen to fill this seat.
RBG is gone. My concern is for the living low-income women and LGBTQ community and those for generations to come who will have to live with the consequences of what comes next.
With all due respect, this isn't beanbag, it's bloodsport. And if you thought the election was a powder keg before this evening, things have now been cranked up WAY past 11. We are truly now on a high-wire with no net.
I'm not doing anything that she wasn't insinuating with her own last words that she dictated to her daughter in her final days. SHE knew full well what her death meant.
Murkowski and Romney now seem locked in as not voting to go forward based on statements. Collins is committing political suicide if she doesn't. Everything rides on finding one more Republican Senator willing to stand by their own made-up rules.
I respect RBG, her determination to stay on the court as long as she was able, and the legal battles she won before taking her seat. She lived up to all the expectations you would have of a Supreme Court Justice, and I am sure she will be fondly remembered.
Give it a couple of minutes Kay. Like her or hate her she deserves a few minutes before claiming her death to be a political turn of events. She was an amazing woman that we should respect and mourn despite the political climate. Please?
I don't mean to be rude, but her death IS a political turn of events, a seismic one. I don't have to claim it or make it one for it to be so. No Supreme Court Justice will ever have a death that isn't. But this one is by orders of magnitude moreso.
The power these 9 people hold over us is IMMENSE. And a majority of the voters in this country were robbed of their right to have their duly-elected President pick one of them, and the opposition is going to abandon the EXACT reasoning (flimsy as it was) they used to make that happen to fill this seat.
RBG is gone. My concern is for the living low-income women and LGBTQ community and those for generations to come who will have to live with the consequences of what comes next.
With all due respect, this isn't beanbag, it's bloodsport. And if you thought the election was a powder keg before this evening, things have now been cranked up WAY past 11. We are truly now on a high-wire with no net.
With all due respect to you, seriously not being a jerk here, if we can’t see the people beyond the policy, beyond the agenda, then we have already lost. It will not matter who wins the election. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? What does it matter if we overthrow Nero to become a nation of modern day Caligulas? When do we become the enemy? I am guessing it is when we forget the people that came before and the future of all people as we go forward. One side has already expressed their willingness to sacrifice the future, they ignore the needs of their children and grandchildren, should the other side now forget their parents and grandparents?
This will be absolutely overwhelming in the news, we will all think about this, what I was asking is that we give a little time to respect the person before we debate what comes after.
Give it a couple of minutes Kay. Like her or hate her she deserves a few minutes before claiming her death to be a political turn of events. She was an amazing woman that we should respect and mourn despite the political climate. Please?
I don't mean to be rude, but her death IS a political turn of events, a seismic one. I don't have to claim it or make it one for it to be so. No Supreme Court Justice will ever have a death that isn't. But this one is by orders of magnitude moreso.
The power these 9 people hold over us is IMMENSE. And a majority of the voters in this country were robbed of their right to have their duly-elected President pick one of them, and the opposition is going to abandon the EXACT reasoning (flimsy as it was) they used to make that happen to fill this seat.
RBG is gone. My concern is for the living low-income women and LGBTQ community and those for generations to come who will have to live with the consequences of what comes next.
With all due respect, this isn't beanbag, it's bloodsport. And if you thought the election was a powder keg before this evening, things have now been cranked up WAY past 11. We are truly now on a high-wire with no net.
With all due respect to you, seriously not being a jerk here, if we can’t see the people beyond the policy, beyond the agenda, then we have already lost. It will not matter who wins the election. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? What does it matter if we overthrow Nero to become a nation of modern day Caligulas? When do we become the enemy? I am guessing it is when we forget the people that came before and the future of all people as we go forward. One side has already expressed their willingness to sacrifice the future, they ignore the needs of their children and grandchildren, should the other side now forget their parents and grandparents?
This will be absolutely overwhelming in the news, we will all think about this, what I was asking is that we give a little time to respect the person before we debate what comes after.
As @deltago's post indicates, there is no time. She held on for far longer than she should have had to. And to respect that legacy at all requires preventing our entire system of government from collapsing under a set two two completely different standards as to how Supreme Court seats are filled. Which is currently 1.) Republicans get to make them and 2.) Democrats don't. I apologize for nothing.
Comments
When you can't even bring yourself to name an actual flaw of your own party, only what you believe to be their virtues, you have probably reached a point where you should step back and reflect. "They aren't comparable" rings more than a bit hollow when you can't even allow yourself to be self critical for a single paragraph.
Kind of squares with what he fantasized about doing at the border. They always seem to walk up to the line of absolute lunacy, but someone in the bureaucracy makes sure it doesn't actually happen. But this proclivity towards just flat-out sadism flows down from the top.
Access to information has been and will continue to be increasingly restricted, the idea that you live in a society with a free press or information ecosystem when those who publish true but uncomfortable things for politicians are hounded to the ends of the earth is laughable.
"What has changed since that Obama-era consensus? Only one thing: in 2016, WikiLeaks published documents that reflected poorly on Democrats and the Clinton campaign rather than the Bush-era wars, rendering Democrats perfectly willing, indeed eager, to prioritize their personal contempt for Assange over any precepts of basic press freedoms, civil liberties, or Constitutional principles. It’s really just as simple – and as ignoble – as that.
It is this utterly craven and authoritarian mentality that is about to put Democrats of all sorts in bed with the most extremist and dangerous of the Trump faction as they unite to create precedents under which the publication of information – long held sacrosanct by anyone caring about press freedoms – can now be legally punished.
Recall that the DNC itself is currently suing WikiLeaks and Assange for publishing the DNC and Podesta emails they received: emails deemed newsworthy by literally every major media outlet, which relentlessly reported on them. Until this current Trump DOJ criminal prosecution of Assange, that DNC lawsuit had been the greatest Trump-era threat to press freedoms – because it seeks to make the publication of documents, which is the core of journalism, legally punishable. The Trump DOJ’s attempts to criminalize those actions is merely the next logical step in this descent into a full-scale attack on basic press rights"
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/
The democrats aren’t perfect but I question anyone that tries to argue that their flaws are anywhere near equivalent to the dumpster fire that is the trump republicans. The mental contortions that “moral” people must go through to vote for him would fill a dissertation. I particularly enjoy being repeatedly told how bad the US would look under biden, with the use of footage from how it looks now under trump.
I can't disagree there. The people who said Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself are right, and while I always knew that, I also thought he would think Wikileaks is on "his side" given 2016, even though they are not, and pardon him.
At the very least, I didn't expect most democrats to turn on Wikileaks. When I was a liberal during this time I heard nothing but praise about them. It's depressing because it means there is nobody left in the public sphere- not even Rand Paul- who actually talks about protecting civil liberties in any real way.
To be fair, a lot of journalists are against prosecuting Wikileaks, because they know it endangers them as well should they ever publish anything classified, which is supposed to be legal.
I have to remind myself every once in awhile that the political landscape of today really is nothing like the previous decade.
I assume you are talking about footage of the riots?
However, the fact that Roger Stone was able to give orders to Wikileaks to release Podesta's emails within 24 hours of something like the Hollywood Access tapes absolutely damages and de-legitimizes a lot of the good work they were doing.
Cant put a thumb on the scale and also pretend to be unbiased.
Which kind of proves the point of what I quoted Greenwald as saying, that the democrats will happily sacrifice their own stated moral principles in the name of partisanship. If the truth is going to favor the people they dislike, then they will punish those who speak it.
It certainly isn't discrediting to any source of information if they are vehemently supportive of the democratic candidate, oh no siree. Assange clearly isn't a Republican, has published highly damaging leaks about Republicans before including war crimes, is in every way, shape, and form more objective than any other source of information, because he only publishes what is documented and does it to both sides.
It just goes to show that the only way to be "reliable" to the modern day left is to never tell them what they don't want to hear, and always act like you are totally on their side in every way. It's really unhealthy.
I remember 2016 articles making hilarious claims like that Wikileaks is a "de facto Trump Super PAC". Ignore the content, attack the motives.
If I was gonna publish damaging information about a potential president, I would probably do it before, and not after, they have the power to use the Justice Department to prosecute you, but that's just me. Not that it worked out for him in the end though.
I said this before, someone just needs to sit through these charges all the way to the Supreme Court in order for this type of behavior to be eradicated.
It's one thing for random nobodies to say things are unconstitutional, it's another when the Supreme Court says it.
Journalists can mysteriously disappear in Russia for flying too close to the sun, in America they just do it openly and nobody cares.
I'm not particularly interested in dying on the hill of which band of murderers is the more sensible one. The only time they both agree is when it comes to continuing to kill people overseas. I find the whole conversation a pointless distraction from important issues, really. I don't want to convince folks that Republicans are good, so much as convince them that Democrats aren't as good as their t.v ads portray them to be.
... What I said does not prove that point. At all. I havent expressed any opinion on the matter outside of the general positive opinions of Progressives toward Chelsea Manning and Snowden (Both of whom leaked during Obama's administration, doing him no favors)
and accurately noting that Wikileaks was working directly with the Trump campaign in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale.
I didnt say Assange was a Republican. I didnt say if I approved or disproved or prior wikileaks releases.
Wikileak's credibility is damaged. Not because they released damaging information about Democrats (or Republicans) - but because they worked directly with the campaign to do so, and worse yet - with information sourced by Russian authorities with a vested interest in meddling in the US election.
Virtually all of these changes are in favor of democrats, so I wouldn't be surprised if they take PA this time.
I'm not entirely confident they will, however, given the polls I've seen as well as the attitude I get just from living here and knowing people, but it's certainly a distinct possibility as the playing field here is much more in their favor this time.
If your state is making changes before the election, what are they? Curious as to how common it is and what is happening across the country.
The only thing that happened in Michigan up until now is that mail-in ballot applications were sent to everybody a month or two ago. Not sure what the results were. Crickets so far...
I'm not entirely sure mail-in voting necessarily favors the Democrats but I've heard that it will. The logic doesn't really add up to me since there's been plenty of time for anybody to get the old-fashioned absentee ballots which anybody can use for any reason in this state.
Well, according to media reports, mail in ballots are leaning heavily democrat. I imagine this is the case in this particular year because of COVID-19. I also think it is generally a safe assumption that they took the case to court because they thought this outcome would benefit them.
One has to remember he entered the Embassy not for Wikileaks but to escape prosecution for sexual harassment/ rape in Sweden? Norway? Finland? I forget.
Assange has the right to publish the classified information, however, if he obtained it illegally then that is where he gets into trouble.
If what he is doing is noble and right in his mind then he should face the courts and plead his case. He hasn’t, he broke his word to the embassy he was living in and had to be dragged out. He’s a coward.
He sure isn’t a Judith Miller or even a Matthew Cooper.
About PA, I agree about changing voting laws right before an election is a no no. Ontario went through it with the Toronto Municipal election and it had political interference written all over it.
However, Covid done messed a lot of things up and extending a deadline to get votes in this time around is an exception especially if the ballots haven’t even been printed yet.
With the Green Party ruling, I disagree with the courts on having them removed - more choice is always better - however, I would have to know how long this has been in the actual courts before declaring foul play. If this ruling is years in the making, due to stall tactics being used by the Green Party or worse the GOP then I have no sympathy for such a late ruling. If it was brought to court this year, and if the Green Party has been on previous ballots, then I strongly reject this play.
No. This wasnt a stall tactic by the Green Party. In PA - it looks like they incorrectly submitted paperwork for appearing on the ballot, and so will not be allowed on. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin last week, where the Green Party was again not allowed on the ballot due to paperwork and submission issues.
The Supreme Court of PA's vote was on Party lines (5-2), but the Wisconsin one wasnt (4-3, with a conservative judge joining the liberal bloc).
It's also happened to Kanye in literally every state he has attempted to get on the ballot. I'm sorry, but if you're running for President, and aren't crossing every t and dotting every i well in advance of whatever deadline needs to be met, then I'm fairly sure you can't run a country of 330 million people. This is not an application to fold clothes at the GAP.
Someone who did submit the paperwork correctly had his Town hall tonight. And Biden is becoming more and more impressive as he goes on. So, naturally, the Trump campaign line has gone from "he doesn't know what his own name is" to "he is taking performance enhancing drugs" to "he clearly had all the questions in advance". He also stood for the whole event, unlike the person currently in the office who sat through his. And the entire right-wing media accused actual voter questions of being an "ambush".
Yeah. The real ugly thing about both Kanye and the Green party is both have admitted to receiving a great deal of support from GOP operatives and lawyers for getting the required signatures and paperwork done.
I didnt watch any of the Biden townhall (or the Trump one), but reactions seem to be more positive than Trumps by a decent amount. It doesnt sound like Biden was great by any stretch - but mostly competent.
I generally support your position on freedom of information, but I'm not sure the law is quite as clear-cut as you suggest. Apart from potential issues about the way the information was obtained in the first place (as Assange had contacts with those that provided the information before it was hacked, there's at least a question about conspiracy to answer), the legality of publication is also affected by the reason that was done. Your assumption appears to be that Assange was a noble crusader interested only in truth and that doesn't seem to me to square well with someone willing to spend a large portion of their life hiding from going to court (and a Swedish one at that).
If Assange did eventually end up in a US court, one issue likely to be explored would be his reasons for publication. If that were done with malice, then first amendment rights don't operate in the same way.
Civil rights, welfare, the Iran Deal (Which Republicans ended), continuously defending the ACA, ObamaCare (not great, but did get about 20 million more Americans access to health care), etc.
Yup, nothing but talk...
@WarChiefZeke "When you can't even bring yourself to name an actual flaw of your own party, only what you believe to be their virtues, you have probably reached a point where you should step back and reflect."
They aren't my party, but they are the best chance we have of undoing the damage Trump has done. When compared to the current Republican party, there IS no comparison. Get back to me when Biden opens up concentration camps, eugenics camps, and advocates for police brutality.
"Access to information has been and will continue to be increasingly restricted, the idea that you live in a society with a free press or information ecosystem when those who publish true but uncomfortable things for politicians are hounded to the ends of the earth is laughable."
I know right? With Trump continually attacking the free press and the utter bloat of conservative propaganda that exists only to convince people to ignore what they see is utterly insidious. Also, the fact that you said this is hilarious. How many pages did you spend attacking the free press in this very thread?
That news is soul crushing.
You are now going to see just how utterly disingenuous and full of shit the entire right-wing is, as they do a complete 180 on their EXPLICIT reasoning for not giving Garland a hearing, except this time 50 days before an election, not an entire year. I've talked about McConnell ad nausem, I'm not gonna relitigate it here. He is absolutely going to fill the seat, and they will absolutely do so even if Biden wins in the lame duck.
There hasn't been a more stark contrast in US history between what McConnell did with Scalia's death and what he is about to do with Ginsburg's. Hypocrisy isn't even a strong enough word. But their super-power is their utter shamelessness. If Biden wins and Trump seats her replacement, the Dems should stack the court. Biden should come out for this NOW.
The ONLY hope is finding 4 Senators that will hold themselves to the standards they dictated for themselves four years ago. The only possible people that could be are Romney, Collins, Murkowsi and......honestly, I can't think of who the 4th would be. So we're fucked. An absolute rubber-stamp for oligarchy for the rest of our lives, and an almost certain end to reproductive rights for women.
The only possible sign of hope is that I think the double-standard (again, the most obvious double-standard in history by leaps and bounds) will get through to most people given how close we are to the election, and the outrage it sparks will drive turnout through the roof. Trump's pick does nothing for that. Every Evangelical and person voting for a right-wing court is already committed to being in line on election day. But the stunning hypocrisy and importance of this will shock people on the other side to the polls.
I don't mean to be rude, but her death IS a political turn of events, a seismic one. I don't have to claim it or make it one for it to be so. No Supreme Court Justice will ever have a death that isn't. But this one is by orders of magnitude moreso.
The power these 9 people hold over us is IMMENSE. And a majority of the voters in this country were robbed of their right to have their duly-elected President pick one of them, and the opposition is going to abandon the EXACT reasoning (flimsy as it was) they used to make that happen to fill this seat.
RBG is gone. My concern is for the living low-income women and LGBTQ community and those for generations to come who will have to live with the consequences of what comes next.
With all due respect, this isn't beanbag, it's bloodsport. And if you thought the election was a powder keg before this evening, things have now been cranked up WAY past 11. We are truly now on a high-wire with no net.
I'm not doing anything that she wasn't insinuating with her own last words that she dictated to her daughter in her final days. SHE knew full well what her death meant.
Murkowski and Romney now seem locked in as not voting to go forward based on statements. Collins is committing political suicide if she doesn't. Everything rides on finding one more Republican Senator willing to stand by their own made-up rules.
With all due respect to you, seriously not being a jerk here, if we can’t see the people beyond the policy, beyond the agenda, then we have already lost. It will not matter who wins the election. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? What does it matter if we overthrow Nero to become a nation of modern day Caligulas? When do we become the enemy? I am guessing it is when we forget the people that came before and the future of all people as we go forward. One side has already expressed their willingness to sacrifice the future, they ignore the needs of their children and grandchildren, should the other side now forget their parents and grandparents?
This will be absolutely overwhelming in the news, we will all think about this, what I was asking is that we give a little time to respect the person before we debate what comes after.
As @deltago's post indicates, there is no time. She held on for far longer than she should have had to. And to respect that legacy at all requires preventing our entire system of government from collapsing under a set two two completely different standards as to how Supreme Court seats are filled. Which is currently 1.) Republicans get to make them and 2.) Democrats don't. I apologize for nothing.
Yep, absolutely right, we should emulate the people we despise. Got it.
Probably you should just fuck off Michelle.
Got it will do.
Fucking off now.
Laters all.